[sr4402]

Agreed. Until we can manufacture artificial gravity, long term space travel is best suited for the robots.

It's called a centrifuge. The movie 2010 showed one very well. It was an area on a spaceship in which people live on the inside of a moving circle. It was also described in the book "Ringworld" in which the ring is so many miles wide that it is hard to see the ring unless you look.

There are many reasons to push toward a manned mission to mars that would benefit us greatly:

Suspended Animation - If we could suspend victims of wrecks and other catastrophes until they get to surgery and treatment, the prognosis may be far better, possibly saving lives.

Fungal and Bacterial management - Long term fungal and bacterial invasions are a real problem in long term enclosed spaces. Research on how these are managed in our present environment may lead to medical breakthroughs as well as make it possible to live in space.

Propulsion - Current technologies are based upon reaction drives. Rockets or Nuclear fission drives which spew out mass for propulsion in space. Research into new forms of propulsion may find means that are not based on reaction, perhaps giving us nonpolluting means of transportation, not only in space, but on earth.

Food- How to feed people for long periods of time. Todays food technology depends on nature and storage, but long term storage of foods as in a Mars mission may not be adequate. Means of producing food without earths supportive environment will be critical to Space Stations as well as new colonies. Designing plants and animals to provide food in new environments for colonization will be essential and tell us much about the current designs.

No- I think a mission to Mars is exactly the way to go for the United States. Breakthroughs in technology are required for us to stay completive in a global economy. Just as JFKs mission to the moon drove technology and our nation as the leader in many ways, President is right to set a goal post into the future. John F. Kennedy was not wrong in setting the goal post high.

[stacytec]

Thats why I said " its just admitting that we don't have all the answers yet." Ion propulsion is still in its infancy (and, IMO, the future of all interplanetary travel). No manned space craft currently uses artificial gravity to maintain earth-like conditions for its crew. Pointing to Arthur C. Clarke novels as to the way things should be is great, but we can't escape the reality of the way things are right now. And watching the xprize folks take flight this year, I'm beginning to wonder if the serious advances in human space exploration will be private ones ( as Clark alluded to). I'm optimistic about the possibility of future human planetary exploration, but at the moment - robots answer questions at a fraction of the cost with no risk to human life. When we have workable, low cost solutions for human planetary exploration, I'll be 100% behind it. That implies a lot of project development such as getting propulsion technology in place and figuring out how to maintain contained ecosystems. And , of course, keeping the cost down for us taxpayers. A "solution" with an astronomical price tag is something that should be avoided as long as the project is publicly funded - especially if current alternatives satisfy mission objectives at a fraction of the price. In my view, human longterm travel and colonization in space is not the objective right now. When the technology catches up, the objectives can be revised.